• No results found

The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts"

Copied!
373
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)
(2)
(3)

Graeco-Roman World

Editors

H.S. Versnel

D. Frankfurter

J. Hahn

VOLUME 153

(4)

Priests, Tongues,

and Rites

The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and

Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE)

by

Jacco Dieleman

BRILL

LEIDEN · BOSTON 2005

(5)

This series Religions in the Graeco-Roman World presents a forum for studies in the social and cultural function of religions in the Greek and the Roman world, dealing with pagan religions both

in their own right and in their interaction with and influence on Christianity and Judaism during a lengthy period of fundamental change. Special attention will be given to the religious history of regions and cities which illustrate the practical workings of these processes. Enquiries

regarding the submission of works for publication in the series may be directed to Professor H.S. Versnel, Herenweg 88, 2361 EV Warmond, The Netherlands, h.s.versnel@hetnet.nl.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dieleman, Jacco

Priests, Tongues and Rites : The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 CE) / by Jacco Dieleman

p. cm. — (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world, ISSN 0927-7633 ; v. 153) Originally presented as the author’s thesis (doctoral – Leiden University, 2003). Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN 90-04-14185-5 (hardback : alk. paper)

1. Egypt—Civilization—332 B.C. – 638 A.D. 2. Magic—Egypt. 3. Rites and ceremonies—Egypt. 4. Bilingualism—Egypt—History–To 1500. 5. Egyptian

language—Papyri, Demotic. 6. Manuscripts, Greek (Papyri)—Egypt. I. Title. II. Series. DT61.D54 2004

133.4’3’0932–dc22

2004058147

ISSN 0927-7633 ISBN 90 04 14185 5

© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that

the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910

Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

(6)

Preface . . . ix

List of Figures . . . xiii

Chapter One. Introduction . . . 1

1.1. The Paradox of Translation—posing the problem ... 1

1.2. Research on the Theban Magical Library... 11

1.3. Aims and methods of the investigation: reading magic ... 21

Chapter Two. Presentation of the Sources P. Leiden I384 and P. London-Leiden . . . 25

2.1. Two bilingual manuscripts from the Anastasi collection .. 25

2.2. A subgroup within the Theban Magical Library... 26

2.3. Description of the manuscripts and their textual contents. . . 29

2.3.1. P. Leiden I 384 ... 29

2.3.2. P. London-Leiden ... 35

2.4. Provenance ... 40

2.5. Date ... 41

2.6. Facsimiles and photos... 44

Chapter Three. The Use of Script . . . 47

3.1. Introduction ... 47

3.2. Native scripts mixed-up... 48

3.3. Greek language inscribed... 63

3.3.1. Greek script and language ... 63

3.3.2. Greek alphabetic devices in Egyptian guise... 64

3.3.3. Alphabetic Demotic and Old-Coptic: transcription at work . . . 69

3.4. Considering secrecy... 80

3.4.1. ‘Cipher’ script ... 87

(7)

Chapter Four. The Form and Function of Bilingualism . . . 103

4.1. Introduction ... 103

4.2. Language change and language attitude in Roman Egypt . . . 104

4.3. The process of insertion: Greek loanwords in the Demotic spells . . . 110

4.3.1. Materials of medicine and magic... 111

4.3.2. Medical terminology ... 117

4.3.3. House utensils ... 118

4.3.4. Mixed compounds ... 118

4.3.5. Conclusions... 119

4.4. The process of alternation: the ritual power of foreign languages . . . 121

4.4.1. The ritual power of Greek ... 123

4.4.2. Translating from Greek into Demotic... 127

4.4.3. Invoking Seth—Typhon ... 130

4.4.4. Fear of Nubia... 138

4.4.5. The pragmatics of language alternation in the Demotic spells . . . 143

Chapter Five. Diversity in Rhetoric . . . 145

5.1. Alternation of writing traditions in the Greek spells ... 145

5.2.1. Consecration of the ring (PGM XII.201–216) ... 147

5.2.2. Close reading of the prayer (PGM XII.216–269) ... 149

5.3. Appropriation of a ritual: ‘Opening the Mouth’ ... 170

5.4. Once again the ‘Paradox of Translation’ ... 182

Chapter Six. Of Priests and Prestige. The Need for an Authoritative Tradition . . . 185

6.1. Introduction ... 185

6.2. Compound plant names and ancient botany ... 189

6.3. Temple scribes, prophets and the like ... 203

6.3.1. Egyptian priestly titles as social classes . ... 205

6.3.2. Egyptian priests as actors in cult and community .. 211

6.3.3. Egyptian priests as characters in the literary imagination . . . 221

6.3.3.1. Egyptian priests in Egyptian literary texts.. 222

6.3.3.2. Egyptian priests in Greek and Latin texts of the Roman period . . . 239

(8)

6.4. Packaging the text: rhetorical strategies in the

introductions to the recipes . . . 254

6.4.1. Advertising introductions to the actual magical recipes . . . 256

6.4.2. Analysis of the mystifying motifs ... 261

6.4.3. Combination of separate cultural traditions ... 276

6.5. What about priests and prestige?... 280

Chapter Seven. Towards a Model of Textual Transmission . . . 285

Appendices . . . 295

Bibliography . . . 317

Index of Passages . . . 331

(9)
(10)

This book is a study of the social and cultural contexts of two mag-ical handbooks, written partly in Egyptian and in Greek, that once belonged to a larger collection of occult texts, nowadays generally known as the ‘Theban Magical Library’. It is an attempt to throw light on the social and cultural identity of the producers and users of the manuscripts by investigating the form, contents and layout of the Demotic and Greek spells that are found on the manuscripts Papyrus Leiden I 384 verso (PGM XII and PDM xii) and Papyrus London-Leiden (consisting of P. BM 10070 and P. Leiden I 383; PDM xiv and PGM XIV). The manuscripts can be dated by palaeography to the second or third century CE. The discovery of the ‘Theban Magical Library’ is attributed to a group of anonymous Egyptian farmers, who are supposed to have found the cache somewhere in the hills surround-ing modern Luxor sometime before 1828. Due to the fact that the hoard of papyrus scrolls and codices was not found during a regular excavation, nothing is known about the archaeological context of the library. This is very unfortunate since the bilingual character of the library poses some haunting questions about the identity of the origi-nal owner or owners of this collection of magical books. Who was able to make sense of the variety of scripts and languages and why were Demotic and Greek spells combined on a single manuscript? Infor-mation concerning the exact location of the find would have given a first indication of the identity of the owner or owners. Was the collec-tion of texts found in a tomb, a temple or a private house? Were the manuscripts found together with other artefacts? If so, how did these relate to the manuscripts? Were they buried with a corpse as funerary gifts or hidden from the Roman authorities out of fear for prosecu-tions? These questions can no longer be answered, so that, today, only the texts themselves remain as witnesses of what must once have been a lively interest in the occult in Roman-period Thebes.

The book is a slightly reworked version of my dissertation, which I defended at Leiden University, the Netherlands, in 2003. The research project came about as the result of my interest in the production and

(11)

function of texts in relation to the society and its members from which these texts originate. When, as a student of Egyptology, I took classes in Comparative Literature and became familiar with interpretative models to study the relationship between text and society in more detail, I reflected upon the possibilities to apply these new insights to ancient Egyptian texts. It was Günter Vittmann, one of my teachers at Würzburg University, who helped me out unintentionally, by directing my attention to the Demotic Magical Papyri. This corpus of magical rites and incantations dating from the Roman period not only continues a long tradition of Egyptian magic and ritual, but also forms part of the more international, and in a way innovative, currents of magical thought of the Greco-Roman period. As the spells are relatively well-preserved, the corpus is suitable to pose questions about the author’s relationship to the multi-cultural society of Greco-Roman Egypt, and about concepts of tradition and authority in a country where the social and cultural order was changing under the influence of a foreign elite, to wit: Greek and Roman settlers, soldiers, bureaucrats and rulers.

The Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS) of Leiden University provided me, from September1999 until August 2003, with an inspiring environment and the necessary finan-cial and material means to conduct my research, for which I thank its staff and members heartily. I am highly indebted to my two supervisors, J.F. Borghouts and Mineke Schipper, for their time and confidence in my abilities to complete this project. Maarten J. Raven, the curator of the Egyptian department of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Lei-den, was always willing to give me access to the original manuscripts. I thank him for his friendliness and help and for giving me permission to publish the photos of the ‘cipher’ alphabet and the papyrus scraps pasted to the verso of the Leiden part of P. London-Leiden. I also thank Richard Parkinson and Carol Andrews, curators of the British Museum, for allowing me access to the London part of P. London-Leiden in December1999. In July 2000 Heinz-J. Thissen invited me to give a paper on my research project at the Seminar für Ägyptologie of the University of Cologne. I cannot thank him enough for his hospitality over the weekend and for challenging me to formulate clearly my by then still rather crude and preliminary ideas on the subject during our long informal discussions. In retrospect I realize that the foundations for the present book were laid out during this weekend. In the winter quarter of2002, I participated in a seminar on the Greek Magical Papyri at the University of Chicago. I am indebted to Christopher A. Faraone

(12)

and Hans Dieter Betz for their invitation and all participants for their insightful remarks on an early draft of chapter 5. The analysis of the Ouphôr rite in the second part of chapter5 has profited greatly from the many discussions with Ian Moyer, who happened to be working on this spell at the same time. During my Chicago stay I spent long and pleas-ant days in the research library of the Oriental Institute, where Janet H. Johnson took great care that I could do my research in all tranquil-lity of mind. I thank her for having been such a good host to me and for discussing with me parts of the project. The research stay in Chicago was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Now that the research has been done and its results have been written down, I am grateful to Brill Academic Pub-lishers and its editors H.S. Versnel and David Frankfurter for accepting this book as a volume in the series Religions of the Graeco-Roman World. I thank David Frankfurter in particular for his insightful comments on the dissertation version.

The pages that follow are the fruit of spending many lonely hours in libraries and, at the same time, of spending time with a number of wonderful people. Throughout the four-year period of my research, my closest friends Jan, Joost, Maarten and Stefan never got tired of putting this project into perspective with their irony. I thank them warmly for their wit and friendship and for making me laugh about my project ever so often. Jackie Murray has also been a good friend and constant source of encouragement and help during these years. I thank her in the first place for her humour, but also for the discussions we had on the subject and for her critical readings of drafts of papers and chapters of the dissertation. Last but not least, this is an opportune place to say a big thank you to my parents, Els den Hamer and Adri Dieleman, who have always supported me during my years of study and never lost interest in my dealings with the ancient world. This book could not have been written without their support.

(13)
(14)

Martin Henze made the overview drawings of the manuscripts. The reader is warned that the images of textual passages in P. London-Leiden are not facsimiles, but taken from Thompson’s hand-copy. 2.1 Two ‘cipher’ alphabets (photo RMO, Leiden)

2.2 Scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso, under column19, to London-Leiden manuscript; Leemans nr.1 (photo RMO, Leiden)

2.3 Scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso, under column13, to London-Leiden manuscript, Leemans nr.6 (photo RMO, Leiden)

2.4 Overview P. Leiden I384 verso: PDM xii & PGM XII 2.5 Figure sitting on stool (after GMPT )

2.6 Seth holding two spears (after GMPT )

2.7 Anubis standing at the mummy bier (after GMPT ) 2.8 Figure (Osiris?) standing on basket (after Leemans1856) 2.9 Facsimile of two ‘cipher’ alphabets, Leemans nr.3 (after

Lee-mans1839)

2.10 Facsimile of scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso to London-Leiden manuscript, Leemans nr.1 (after Leemans 1839) 2.11 Facsimile of scrap of papyrus pasted on the verso to

London-Leiden manuscript, Leemans nr.6 (after Leemans 1839)

3.1 P. London-Leiden23/24–26 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 3.2 P. London-Leiden27/1–9 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 3.3 P. London-Leiden28/1–4 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 3.4 P. London-Leiden23/24–26 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 3.5 P. London-Leiden24/6–14 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 3.6 P. London-Leiden verso17/1–8 (after Griffith and Thompson

1921)

3.7 Pseudo-hieroglyphs, P. London-Leiden5/8–10 (after Griffith and Thompson1921)

4.1 P. London-Leiden verso1–3 (after Leemans 1839)

(15)

4.3 P. London-Leiden15/24–31 (after Leemans 1839)

4.4 P. London-Leiden23/1–20 (after Griffith and Thompson 1921) 4.5 P. London-Leiden verso20/1–7 (after Griffith and Thompson

(16)

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Paradox of Translation—posing the problem

A telling theoretical problem regarding the relationship between Egyp-tian and Greek language presents itself in the introduction of treatise XVI of the Corpus Hermeticum. The ancient text articulates a num-ber of clear-cut value judgements on Egyptian and Greek that are thought provoking and that throw an intriguing light on the coexis-tence of Egyptian and Greek language and script in the two Demotic-Greek magical handbooks that form the topic of this book, P. Leiden I 384 verso and P. London-Leiden, which belong to the corpus of the so-called Demotic and Greek Magical Papyri. Since the Corpus Hermeticum and the two magical handbooks derive from the same native Egyptian priestly circles, treatise XVI begs to serve as a steppingstone for the following chapters on the use of script, language, idiom and imagery in these magical handbooks. The Corpus Hermeticum is a loose collec-tion of seventeen treatises, written in Greek, dealing with theosophical issues related to the salvation of man by means of knowledge (gnôsis) of the cosmos.1 The texts formed part of a widespread current of

eso-teric thought that flourished during the first centuries CE and sought its inspiration in traditional Egyptian and Jewish religion combined with neo-platonic philosophy.2As such, the Hermetic treatises were as

inter-national in contents and influence as the Greek Magical Papyri, which were written around the same time and contain references to this

move-1 The standard edition is A.D. Nock and A.J. Festugière, Corpus Hermeticum4 vols. (Paris1946–1954) vols. 1–2; still useful in some respects, though based on a corrupt text, is Walter Scott, Hermetica. The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or

Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus4 vols. (Oxford 1924–1936) vols. 1–2. For

an English translation with updated philological commentary, see, Brian P. Copenhaver,

Hermetica. The Greek ‘Corpus Hermeticum’ and the Latin ‘Asclepius’ in a new English translation, with notes and introduction (Cambridge1992).

2 For introductions to this corpus of texts, see, Garth Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind (Cambridge1986); A.J. Festugière, Hermétisme et mystique païenne (Paris1967) 28–87, reprint of ‘L’Hermétisme’ BSRLL (1948) 1–58.

(17)

ment.3Like the Greek Magical Papyri the Corpus Hermeticum has long been

seen by classical scholars as originating from a Greek cultural milieu, while Egyptian and Jewish elements were explained as ornaments for the sole purpose of giving the whole a mystifying flavour. However, scholars are now becoming aware that the basic concepts of the Her-metic doctrines are in fact deeply rooted in ancient Egyptian religious thought, which was still alive among Egyptian priests in the Roman period.4

Treatise XVI is presented as a teaching of Asclepius to king Ammon about the constitution of the cosmos.5As an introduction to his lessons,

Asclepius wants to clarify some misunderstandings with regard to the lucidity of his doctrines.

[1] I have sent you a long discourse, O king, as a sort of précis or reminder of all the others; it is not composed as to agree with vulgar

3 For an introduction to the Greek Magical Papyri as a corpus of ancient magical texts and a field of scholarship, see, chapter2.2. As for the intertextual relationships, an illustrative example, although not unproblematic, is the ‘Prayer of Thanksgiving’, which is preserved in three sources. The Latin Asclepius gives the prayer as its conclusion and codex VI of the Nag Hammadi Library contains a Coptic version of the prayer among its Hermetic texts (NHC VI, 7: 63,33–65,7). Yet, the prayer also recurs in PGM III.494–611; 591–609. For discussion, see, Copenhaver, Hermetica, 92 and 259; James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (rev. ed.; New York1990) 328– 329; P. Dirkse and J. Brashler, ‘The Prayer of Thanksgiving’ NHSt 11 (Leiden 1979) 375–387. See for a synoptic edition of the texts: Jean-Pierre Mahé, Hermès en

Haute-Égypte. Les textes hermétiques de Nag Hammadi et leurs parallèles grecs et latins. (Bibliothèque

Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: Textes3; Leuven 1978) 137–167.

4 The issue of the relationship between the Hermetica and the Egyptian priest-hood is still a matter of fervent debate. An important and highly original defence of the Egyptian origin of the Hermetica is Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes. A Hermetic trea-tise in Demotic of which the earliest manuscript derives from the Ptolemaic period has recently been discovered, proving that the Egyptian priesthood was already working with these ideas at least a century before the Greek Corpus Hermeticum is generally dated: R. Jasnow and K.-Th. Zauzich, ‘A Book of Thoth?’, in: C.J. Eyre ed., Proceedings of the

Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Cambridge,3–9 September 1995 (OLA 82; Leuven

1998) 607–618; Jean-Pierre Mahé, ‘Preliminary Remarks on the Demotic Book of Thoth and the Greek Hermetica’ Vigiliae Christianae50 (1996) 353–363. See also: B.H. Stricker,

De Brief van Aristeas. De Hellenistische Codificaties der Praehelleense Godsdiensten (VKNAW,

Let-terkunde, Nieuwe Reeks,62/4; Amsterdam 1956) 99, 113; Ph. Derchain, ‘L’authenticité de l’inspiration égyptienne dans le “Corpus Hermeticum”’ Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 161 (1962) 175–198 and Erik Iversen, Egyptian and Hermetic Doctrine (Opuscula Graeco-latina27; Copenhagen 1984). Cf. Nock and Festugière, Corpus Hermeticum, vol. 1, v.

5 For its possible relations with Egyptian religion, see, J.P. Sørensen, ‘Ancient Egyp-tian Religious Thought and the XVIth Hermetic Tractate’, in: G. Englund ed., The

Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions (Uppsala1987)

(18)

opinion but contains much to refute it. That it contradicts even some of my own discourses will be apparent to you. My teacher, Hermes— often conversing with me in private, sometimes in the presence of Tat— used to say that those reading my books would find their organization very simple and clear when, on the contrary, it is unclear and keeps the meaning of its words concealed; furthermore, it will be entirely unclear (he said) when the Greeks eventually desire to translate our language to their own and thus produce the greatest distortion and unclarity in what was written. [2] But this discourse, expressed in our paternal language, keeps clear the meaning of its words. The very quality of the sound and theintonation? of the Egyptian words contain in themselves the energy of the objects they speak of.

Therefore, in so far as you have the power, (my) king—for sure, you are capable of all things—, keep the discourse untranslated, lest mysteries of such greatness come to the Greeks, lest the extravagant, flaccid and, as it were, dandified Greek idiom extinguish something stately and concise, the energetic idiom of the (Egyptian) words. For the Greeks, O king, have empty speeches capable only of logical demonstration, and this is just what the philosophy of the Greeks is: noise of speeches. We, by contrast, use not speeches but sounds that are full of action.

[Corpus Hermeticum XVI1–2]6

These two paragraphs present a rather negative language attitude to-wards Greek, which is considered to be ‘extravagant, flaccid and (as it were) dandified’, while ‘our paternal language’, i.e. Egyptian, is highly esteemed as a language full of divine power and energy.7 By using the

phrase ‘our paternal language’, an amiable bond based on ethnicity is created between the narrator and the addressee and, at the same time, Egyptians are posited as the in-group opposed to the Greeks as the out-siders. According to the narrator, the hierarchy is not only linguistic but also cultural, because the Egyptians have great mysteries, whereas the Greeks only have philosophy, which is presented as a mere play of vain words. Because of this cultural inequality, Greeks are represented as being eager to obtain Egyptian knowledge. Unfortunately, since Greek is such a poor language, it is impossible to translate the energetic Egyp-tian sounds without losing their inherent power and without producing obscure texts. The message is clear: divine knowledge originates from Egypt and it cannot be handed over to other cultural groups in gen-eral, and to the Greeks in particular. This essentialistic point of view

6 Tr. modified from Brian P. Copenhaver.

7 See also Heinz J. Thissen, ‘“...αγυπτι ζων τ  φων ...” Zum Umgang mit der ägyptischen Sprache in der griechisch-römischen Antike’ ZPE97 (1993) 239–252.

(19)

reveals an Egyptian nationalistic discourse that brings the concept of ethnicity into the religious domain. Secrecy and secret knowledge had always been components of Egyptian religion, but were always defined in terms of initiation and cultic purity instead of ethnicity and cultural exclusivity.8 In the text concerned, the narrator presents mysteries as

an Egyptian monopoly that has to be defended against the curiosity of the Greeks. The most productive strategy to exclude Greeks from the Egyptian divine knowledge is to leave the Egyptian language unin-terpreted. The loss of inherent power of the Egyptian sounds sensibly motivates the impossibility of translation, but the implicit reason is a conscious attempt to exclude. In such a case, the pretended impossibil-ity to translate becomes an effective inhibition to translate.

However, the argument of the introduction of treatise XVI seems to be contradicted by an ironic detail: the text itself has come down to us in Greek. The fervently argued inhibition to translate is trespassed by the text itself. Moreover, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that the extant text is a translation of an Egyptian original. In all likelihood, the text was directly composed in Greek for a mixed audience of different ethnic groups, Egyptians and Greeks among others. This, then, constitutes a ‘paradox of translation’: in spite of a religiously motivated inhibition to translate the Egyptian language into a foreign idiom, translations or linguistic transgressions do occur.

The idea that translations are apt to fail because of the inherent powerful qualities of a given language’s sounds was a common issue in the debate on magic and divination in intellectual circles during the Roman period.9 For example, Origen, a Christian apologetic writer of

the third century CE, defends the Christian refusal to call their God by any other name, as for example Zeus or Jupiter, by referring to the impossibility of translation:

8 Jan Assmann, ‘Unio Liturgica. Die kultische Einstimmung in Götterweltlichen Lobpreis als Grundmotiv “esoterischer” Überlieferung im alten Ägypten’, in: Hans G. Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, Secrecy and Concealment. Studies in the History of

Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Leiden1995) 37–60. For a discussion of the origin

and development of the Hellenistic representation of Egypt as the origin of all secret and divine knowledge, see, Idem, Weisheit und Mysterium. Das Bild der Griechen von Ägypten (Munich2000) esp. 35–38.

9 Claire Préaux, ‘De la Grèce classique à l’Égypte hellénistique; traduire ou ne pas traduire’ CdE42 (1967) 369–383; John Dillon ‘The Magical Power of names in Origen and Later Platonism’ in: Richard Hanson and Henri Crouzel (eds.), Origeniana Tertia (Rome1985) 203–216; Gillian Clark, ‘Translate into Greek; Porphyry of Tyre on the New Barbarians’, in: Richard Miles (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity (London 1999) 112–132.

(20)

On the subject of names I have to say further that experts in the use of charms relate that a man who pronounces a given spell in its native language can bring about the effect that the spell is claimed to do. But if the same spell is translated into any other language whatever, it can be seen to be weak and ineffective. Thus it is not the significance of the things which the words describe that has a certain power to do this or that, but it is the qualities and characteristics of the sounds. By consideration of this kind we would in this way defend the fact that Christians strive to the point of death to avoid calling Zeus God or naming him in any other language. [Origen, Against Celsus I,25]10

Iamblichus, a Neo-Platonic philosopher of the late third, early fourth century CE and a fervent defender of divination as a means of obtain-ing knowledge about the nature of thobtain-ings, explains, in the guise of the Egyptian priest Abammon,11 to Porphyry of Tyre why the use of

bar-baric names instead of Greek ones is to be preferred in magic:

Since the gods have shown that the whole language of the sacred nations, such as Assyrians and Egyptians, is appropriate for sacred rites, therefore, we deem it necessary to communicate with the gods in a language akin to them. Moreover, because this mode of speech is the first and most ancient and, in particular, because those who learned the first names concerning the gods passed them on to us after having mingled them with their own language, considered proper and suitable for these (names), we preserve hitherto the law of the tradition unaltered. For if anything befits the gods, clearly the perpetual and unchangeable are natural to them. [Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of Egypt VII,4, 256]

In this passage, Iamblichus not only uses the motif of the impossibility of translation, but also asserts that Egyptian is the most suitable lan-guage for divine communication. He expresses a similar idea in a fol-lowing paragraph in which he retorts Porphyry, who had claimed that the mere meaning of words instead of their sounds is significant:

From this then it becomes evident how reasonable it is that the language of the sacred nations is to be preferred to that of other men. Because words, when translated, do not preserve entirely the same meaning; there are certain idioms for every nation, which are impossible to convey in language to another nation. What is more, even if it were possible to translate them, they would no longer preserve the same power. Foreign 10 Tr. Henry Chadwick.

11 As the treatise displays in many instances a remarkably high level of under-standing of ancient Egyptian religious concepts and practices, Philippe Derchain has argued to take the opening line at face value and to regard the priest Abammon as the true author of the book: ‘Pseudo-Jamblique ou Abammôn? Quelques observations sur l’égyptianisme du De Mysteriis’ CdE38 (1963) 220–226.

(21)

names have both much power of expression and much conciseness, while they lack ambiguity, variety and multiplicity of expression. For all these reasons, these (words) are appropriate for the Higher Powers.

Thus do away with the conjectures which fail in obtaining the truth: ‘either the god invoked is Egyptian or speaking Egyptian’. Instead, it is better to understand that, as the Egyptians were the first being allotted the participation of the gods, the gods rejoice when invoked according to the rites of the Egyptians.

[Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of Egypt VII,5, 257–258]

Greco-Roman authors in general not only afforded innate ritual poten-cy to the Egyptian language but also to the hieroglyphic writing sys-tem.12Hieroglyphs were understood as a pictorial sign system that was

not made up of phonemes but of symbols directly referring to con-cepts. By virtue of divine inspiration, the symbolic character of the signs would enable a profound understanding of the fundamental nature of things. Or, as Plotinus, a third century Neo-Platonic philosopher, wrote:

Each carved image is knowledge and wisdom grasped all at once, not discursive reasoning nor deliberation. [Plotinus, Enneads V,8, 6]

As a result, the semiotic rules of the hieroglyphic writing system raised great interest and several authors, like Plutarch and Clement of Alexan-dria, described some hieroglyphs together with an explanation of their supposed meaning.13They derived their defective knowledge

undoubt-edly from the Hieroglyphica, a now lost list of hieroglyphs with their supposed meaning compiled by Chaeremon, an Egyptian priest of the first century CE, if not from firsthand statements by Egyptian priests.14

Horapollo, an Egyptian intellectual of the fifth century CE, came up with a similar list of hieroglyphs, also called Hieroglyphica, the discovery of which in the Renaissance played an important role in the European intellectual construction of pharaonic Egypt.15 A conspicuous trait of 12 For an overview, see, Erik Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and its Hieroglyphs in European Tradition (Princeton1993), chapter 2. See also: Assmann, Weisheit und Mysterium, 64–71.

The relevant Greek and Latin sources are collected in Pierre Marestaing, Les écritures

égyptiennes et l’antiquité classique (Paris1913).

13 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 10, 354F; 11, 355B; 32, 363F; 51, 371E. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis V, chapter4, §20.4–21.3; chapter 7, §41.2–42.3.

14 Clement was an inhabitant of Alexandria and could therefore very well have based his ideas on personal communication with Egyptian priests. Plutarch was from Chaeroneia, Greece, but visited Egypt once (Moralia678 C). On the subject of cultural exchange between Egypt and Greece, see also, chapter6.3.3.2.

15 Jan Assmann, Moses der Ägypter. Entzifferung einer Gedächtnisspur (Frankfurt am Main 2000) esp. 37–41. The most recent edition of Horapollo’s ‘Hieroglyphica’ is Heinz Josef

(22)

these lists is the mingling of true hieroglyphs with ordinary religious representations that were visible on temple walls, which proves that the classificatory systems were not grounded in a correct definition of the hieroglyphic sign.

An important element of the Greco-Roman discourse on hieroglyphs was secrecy. According to Clement of Alexandria, a Christian apolo-getic author of the second century CE, the hieroglyphic script consti-tuted the final stage of the priestly curriculum, after students had first learned Demotic and, after that, the hieratic script.16 Learning these

mysterious signs was only given to the privileged, as only kings and priests of outstanding character were deemed worthy of hieroglyphic education:

For that reason the Egyptians did not reveal the mysteries that they have to passers-by nor did they transmit knowledge about the divine to profane men; only to those who are to take up kingship and among the priests to those who are deemed to be most fit according to upbringing, education and birth.

[Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis V, chapter7, §41.1–2]

It becomes thus clear that Greco-Roman authors projected a feeling of awe upon the Egyptian priesthood, which they presented as a closed-off community and as the possessor of sacred—and desired—knowledge by virtue of its ancient language and script.17

The Greco-Roman authors were hence convinced of the esoteric qualities of the Egyptian priesthood and its script and language. It is however open to discussion whether their conviction was based on a sincere interest in, and profound understanding of, Egyptian culture and religion. Their desire to find esoteric doctrines undoubtedly influ-enced their perception as much as their superficial knowledge of Egyp-tian culture. Among their sources were certainly early works like those of the Egyptian priests Manetho and Chaeremon, who wrote histories on Egyptian culture in Greek for a Hellenised audience in, respectively, the Ptolemaic and early Roman period.18 It is however uncertain to

what extent their accounts were truly objective descriptions. Manetho, author of the Aegyptiaca, ‘History of Egypt’, worked at the court of kings Thissen, Des Niloten Horapollon Hieroglyphenbuch. Band I; Text und Übersetzung (München 2001).

16 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis V, chapter4, §20. 3.

17 For a more detailed discussion of the Greco-Roman representation of Egypt, see, chapter6.3.3.2.

(23)

Ptolemy I and II (306–246 BCE), two kings who were actively inter-ested in the histories and manners of the different ethnic groups that lived in their newly established Ptolemaic empire.19Manetho’s position

at the court was therefore rather ambivalent. He not only had to secure and to position Egyptian culture among the different ethnic groups, he had first of all to deal with, and defend the interests of the Egyptian priesthood among the Macedonian ruling elite that acted as his patron. One way of gaining sympathy for the Egyptian priesthood would cer-tainly have been to live up to the expectations of the Hellenic world to a certain extent and translate Egyptian notions into a ‘distorting’ Hellenic idiom that emphasised elements as secrecy, divine revelations, etc. Since the original work is for the most part lost, these remarks can only be tentative.20 However, Plutarch relates that Manetho was

consciously involved with the conceptualisation and acceptance of the syncretistic Greco-Egyptian god Sarapis at the Ptolemaic court, which reveals Manetho’s politico-cultural intentions.21 This is even truer for

Chaeremon who served as a tutor to the young Nero at the court of emperor Claudius (41–54 CE).22Unfortunately, solely his description of

the Egyptian priestly way of life is preserved in substantial fragments.23

These excerpts describe the Egyptian priesthood in terms quite similar to those used in Stoic philosophy, valuing concepts of seclusion, reflec-tion and mental stability. Such an edifying picture of Egyptian priest-hood and of the contemplation of the hidden essence of the divine is certainly aimed at raising sympathy for the interests of the Egyptian priesthood. Manetho, Chaeremon and their likes may therefore con-sciously have taken up the process of setting the Egyptian priesthood apart for the benefit of securing their own position within the

Greco-19 For a collection of testimonies and fragments of the works of Manetho, see, W.G. Waddell, Manetho (Loeb Classical Library350; Cambridge, Mass. and London 1940) and Gerald P. Verbrugge and John M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho. Native

Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Michigan1996).

20 A work titled Against Herodotus, which is not preserved, was attributed to Manetho in antiquity. The title suggests that Manetho was at least concerned with correcting Herodotus’ flaws in understanding Egyptian culture or with presenting a more nuanced description.

21 Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris,28, 361F–362A. For a similar viewpoint on Manetho’s intentions, see, John Dillery, ‘The First Egyptian Narrative History: Manetho and Greek Historiography’ ZPE127 (1999) 93–116.

22 Chaeremon’s involvement in Nero’s education is referred to in the Suda, see, test. 3 in P.W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (EPRO 101; 2nd ed.; Leiden1987) 2–3.

(24)

Roman ruling ideology. Their audience then fervently acknowledged the image of the exotic Egyptian priest, so much so that, from the Roman period onward, Egyptian religion and priesthood became the chief topic of interest among other things Egyptian.

This Roman-period discourse on Egypt was clearly at work in texts that were produced and read within Hellenised circles, but it is well conceivable that the native priesthood itself may have had no such mystifying ideas about its social and ritual functioning. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Egyptian priesthood acted as a single unani-mous intellectual body without a social and intellectual stratification. However that may be, treatise XVI of the Corpus Hermeticum plays with the Greco-Roman fascination for the inherent power of the Egyptian language and the secrecy of Egyptian traditional knowledge, in spite of the fact that the text originated in Egyptian priestly circles. This willed identity of the alienated Egyptian priest being opposed to Greek out-siders functions also in the Greek sections of the magical handbooks of the Theban Magical Library, the subject of the present book, and the Greek Magical Papyri in general.24 David Frankfurter has introduced

the term ‘stereotype appropriation’ to explain the apparent paradoxi-cal situation.25According to Frankfurter, Egyptian priests, who had lost

their state subsidies with the introduction of Roman rule, had to look for new sources of income and found those in a Greco-Roman clien-tele willing to pay for divine illumination like, for example, a character such as Thessalos of Tralles.26As a result, Egyptian priests acted to the

expectations of their customers and, so, took on the role of the exoti-cised Egyptian ritual specialist in daily reality as well as in the texts they wrote.

The concept of ‘stereotype appropriation’ is a useful heuristic device to explain the image of an alienated Egyptian priesthood in Egyptian texts, but its applicability could well prove to be restricted to texts writ-ten by Egyptian priests in Greek. Indeed, it has to be taken into account

24 This topic is treated in more detail in chapter6.

25 David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton 1998) 224–237; Idem, ‘The Consequences of Hellenism in Late Antique Egypt: Reli-gious Worlds and Actors’ ARG2 (2000) 162–194, esp.168–183.

26 For an insightful analysis of the complex social strategies involved in Thessalos’ encounter with Egyptian priests, see, Ian Moyer, ‘Thessalos of Tralles and Cultural Exchange’, in: Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, and Brannon Wheeler (eds.), Prayer, Magic, and

the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (University Park, PA2003) 39–56. See also

(25)

that several of the Greek Magical Papyri are accompanied by extensive Demotic spells that could not be read or understood by a presumed Greco-Roman clientele and therefore must have circulated in a dif-ferent social context, possibly also a different geographical area. Who read the Demotic sections? And for what readership was the combi-nation of Greek and Demotic spells considered meaningful? As a con-sequence, these Demotic spells invite us to analyse to what extent the Egyptian priesthood of the Greco-Roman period indeed acted as the Greco-Roman authors imagined. The bilingual manuscripts circulated undoubtedly among Egyptian priests, as the native priesthood formed the only social stratum in society that was still able to read and write Demotic in the Roman period. However, their relationship with Greco-Roman culture was different from that of the ancient authors discussed above. Instead of forming part of, and constituting, the dominant cul-tural discourse, the native priesthood was subject to economic, political and cultural dominance of that same Greco-Roman ruling elite. Such a contact situation of unequal power relations must inevitably have led to social changes within the dominated group, to renegotiations of social roles and identities within the local priestly community and the Roman world at large. The outcome of this process will have been varied, depending on the particularities of the local context and the specific interests of individual priests and their immediate colleagues, but certainly it will have been determined by a combination of resis-tance against certain views and practices of the dominant culture and assimilation to other aspects of the dominant culture’s ideology. Stereo-type appropriation is a clear example of the latter and forms an aspect of the more general term ‘mimicry’: the dominated subject is invited by the dominant ideology to participate but only on the dominant cul-ture’s terms, of which writing in Greek is but one aspect. The Demotic spells preserved on the bilingual manuscripts of the Theban Magical Library offer us then an opportunity to study from a different perspec-tive the beliefs and cultural phenomena articulated in the texts quoted above. Before embarking on this project, the relevant sources and the methodology applied have to be introduced in the remainder of this chapter.

(26)

1.2. Research on the Theban Magical Library

The Theban Magical Library offers a unique opportunity to study aspects of religion, language and acculturation in Roman-period Thebes because of its exceptionally good state of preservation, its co-herent make-up, its detailed magical recipes, its elaborate hymns and invocations to deities and demons of Egyptian, Greek, Semitic and Persian origin and, what is truly extraordinary, because of its bilin-gual character. The majority of manuscripts has been written in Greek, whereas one magical handbook has almost entirely been composed in Demotic. Several other handbooks contain parts, either short or exten-sive, in Demotic and Old-Coptic next to Greek sections. In certain cases these languages interfere to the extent that a Greek invocation is inserted into a Demotic recipe27or that a spell written in Old-Coptic

is accompanied by instructions for use in Greek.28 The multicultural

and bilingual character of the magical spells suggests that the corpus is the result of a desire to collect and combine ritual texts of different ori-gins. The spells in their present state testify clearly to several phases of editing, thereby demonstrating that the ancient redactors were highly skilful philologists and proficient in both Egyptian and Greek. Given this complex language situation, modern students looking for the cul-tural dynamics of the spells within this corpus must include, almost by necessity, both the Egyptian and Greek spells in their research. How-ever, until today, such a line of research has hardly been undertaken. The dominant paradigm in the study of the manuscripts of the Theban Magical Library is determined by a traditional disciplinary division of the material on ethnic and linguistic grounds. This means for exam-ple that classicists tend to focus on the Greek spells without taking the Demotic texts into account, irrespective of the fact that these occur alongside Greek spells on a single manuscript. This situation is shaped as much by the preferences and academic training of earlier scholars as by the fact that the different manuscripts of the Theban Magical Library became dispersed over Europe and were rapidly relegated to the margins of both Egyptology and Classics. To understand more fully the developments that led to the currently still prevailing paradigm, the

27 See chapter4.4.

(27)

following pages will describe the fate of the Theban Magical Library after its discovery and provide a sketch of the most important stages in the study of its manuscripts.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, Egyptian antiquities were in great demand in Europe, where newly established nation states like France, Prussia and the Netherlands felt a need to confirm their independence and grandeur by appropriating pharaonic symbolism and acquiring Egyptian monuments for their recently founded muse-ums. This development provided opportunities to make large sums of money for people such as Bernadino Drovetti, Henri Salt and Gio-vanni Anastasi, who have become particularly well known for their rather unscrupulous conduct in amassing Egyptian antiquities.29

Gio-vanni Anastasi, a rich merchant from Alexandria, who served as Swed-ish-Norwegian Consul-General in Egypt from1828 until his death in 1857,30 acquired a huge and varied collection of Egyptian antiquities

through local antiquity dealers. Through his agents in Luxor, he pur-chased in the course of time a collection of occult texts currently known as the Theban Magical Library.31Nothing is known about the

archaeo-logical context of the texts,32the identity of the vendors or the

circum-stances of the sales.

To complicate matters further, Anastasi sold the manuscripts to dif-ferent European museums and institutions on different occasions. In 1828 Anastasi put the first part of his collection up for sale through

29 An insightful introduction to the early period of collecting antiquities is given in Peter France, The Rape of Egypt. How the Europeans Stripped Egypt of its Heritage (London 1991) 27–57. See also Leslie Greener, The Discovery of Egypt (New York 1966) 103–139 and Brian M. Fagan, The Rape of the Nile. Tomb Robbers, Tourists and Archaeologists in Egypt (New York1975).

30 Warren R. Dawson, ‘Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and their Papyri’, JEA35 (1949) 158–166, esp. 158–160. Cf. M.J. Bierbrier, Who was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed.; London 1995) 15, according to whom Anastasi died on 6 aug. 1860. I assume this is a typo. Giovanni Anastasi also used the name Giovanni d’Athanasi.

31 More detailed descriptions of the find and its subsequent fate can be found in: Karl Preisendanz, Papyrusfunde und Papyrusforschung (Leipzig1933) 91–95; Garth Fowden.

The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind (Cambridge1986) 168–

172; William M. Brashear, ‘The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey; Annotated Bibliography (1928–1994)’ ANRW II 18. 5 (1995) 3380–684, 3401ff.

32 There exists a certain scholarly consensus that the library was found in one of the many tombs situated in the Theban hills, although no circumstantial evidence whatsoever is available to support this hypothesis; see: Preisendanz, Papyrusfunde und

Papyrusforschung,94; Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes, 170 and Brashear, ‘The Greek

(28)

three agents in Livorno and found a buyer in the Dutch government, who acquired the entire lot consisting of 5675 items for the recently founded National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden.33 As a result of

this sale, the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden obtained 126 papyrus manuscripts of which four once belonged to the Theban Mag-ical Library (P. Leiden I 383, 384, 395 and 39734). On August 27,

1832, the Swedish Academy of Antiquities in Stockholm sent Anastasi a letter of gratitude for his gift of a papyrus codex with alchemical recipes in Greek.35 Within the pages of the manuscript (P.

Holmien-sis), a papyrus sheet with a short Greek magical spell (PGM Va) was found. Although nothing is known about the provenance of the two texts, their attribution to the Theban Magical Library is almost cer-tain, because the hand of the alchemical book is nearly identical with the hand of the P. Leiden I 397, which is also a Greek codex with alchemical recipes.36 A second public auction was held in London in

1839 on which occasion the British Museum acquired a small magical codex in Greek (PGM V) that is likely to have originally been part of the Theban Magical Library given its hand, contents, and measure-ments.37

After Anastasi’s death in1857, his entire collection was sold at a pub-lic auction in Paris, where the British Museum, the Berlin Museum, the Louvre and the Bibliothèque Nationale acquired magical handbooks that are attributed with varying degrees of certitude to the Theban Magical Library.38 The British Museum obtained a Demotic papyrus

33 See for a detailed reconstruction of the events and problems related to the negoti-ations about the price Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma, Le Solitaire des Ruines. De archeologische

reizen van Jean Emile Humbert (1771–1839) in dienst van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden

(unpub-lished Phd thesis, Leiden1995) 91–108. Note that this was the first of Anastasi’s public auctions, not the second as stated by Dawson, ‘Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and their Papyri’,159; see Adolf Klasens, ‘An Amuletic Papyrus of the 25th Dynasty’ OMRO 56 (1975) 20–28, 20 note 2.

34 These manuscripts were numbered in the Anastasi catalogue as A(nastasi)65, 75, 76, 66. The last three manuscripts were given the numbering V, W, X in the Leemans facsimile editions.

35 Otto Lagercrantz, Papyrus Graecus Holmiensis (P. Holm.): Recepte für Silber, Steine und Purpur (Arbeten utgifna med understöd af Vilhelm Ekmans Universitetsfond 13;

Uppsala and Leipzig1913) 45.

36 Lagercrantz, Papyrus Graecus Holmiensis (P. Holm.), 50, 53; Robert Halleux, Les alchimistes grecs1: Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm (Paris 1981) 5–6, 9–12.

37 Dawson, ‘Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and their Papyri’,159. Note that this was actually the second, not the third shipment as Dawson writes.

(29)

that, years later, was found to fit exactly to P. Leiden I 383, forming thus a magical manuscript of more than 60 Demotic columns (PDM xiv).39The Bibliothèque Nationale bought a codex of66 pages of

mag-ical recipes in Greek (PGM IV), being the largest magmag-ical handbook of antiquity extant. According to François Lenormant, who supervised the auction and wrote the catalogue, the codex came from Thebes and belonged originally to the library.40

The manuscripts that can be assigned in all probability to the The-ban Magical Library can now be listed as follows:41

P. Bibl.Nat.Suppl.574 magical handbook PGM IV

P. London46 magical handbook PGM V

P. Holmiensis p.42 magical spell PGM Va

P. Leiden I384 magical handbook PGM XII/PDM xii P. Leiden I395 magical handbook PGM XIII

P. Leiden I383 & P. BM 10070 magical handbook PDM xiv/PGM XIV P. Leiden I397 alchemical handbook

P. Holmiensis alchemical handbook

The following manuscripts formed possibly part of the Theban Magical Library, although no decisive arguments can be given:

P. Berlin5025 magical handbook PGM I P. Berlin5026 magical handbook PGM II P. Louvre2391 magical handbook PGM III

manuscripts that are nowadays stored in the Louvre (PGM III and PDM Suppl.) are of unknown provenance and cannot be linked directly to any of the handbooks securely assigned to the Theban Magical Library. Preisendanz and Fowden include the Berlin papyri in their reconstruction of the library, whereas Brashear expresses serious doubts; see Brashear, ‘The Greek Magical Papyri’,3403f.

39 The join was discovered by Willem Pleyte and published by J.-J. Hess in1892: J.-J. Hess, Der gnostische Papyrus von London (Freiburg1892).

40 A citation from the auction catalogue is given in Karl Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri 2 vols. (2nd ed., ed. by Albert Henrichs; Stuttgart 1973–1974) vol. 1, 65. The catalogue to the auction is: Catalogue d’une Collection d’Antiquités

Egyptiennes par M. François Lenormant. Cette Collection Rassemblée par M.D. Anastasi Consul Générale de Suède a Alexandrie (Paris1857) [non vidi]. The Paris Magical Book (PGM IV)

contains an interesting (intertextual) link with P. London-Leiden, which manuscript definitely belongs to the Theban Magical Library, in the form of an Old-Coptic spell (PGM IV.1–25) that includes a rather faithful translation of a passage in a Demotic spell preserved on P. London-Leiden (21/ 1–9 = PDM xiv.627–635). The corresponding passages are: PGM IV.11–14 and P. London-Leiden 21/ 2–3 = PDM xiv.627–629.

41 This and the following table are based on Brashear, ‘The Greek Magical Papyri’, 3402–3404 and Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes, 169ff.

(30)

P. London121 magical handbook PGM VII

P. BM10588 magical handbook PGM LXI/PDM lxi P. Louvre3229 magical handbook PDM Suppl.

Upon their arrival in Europe the magical handbooks did not produce general enthusiasm among scholars of the day. C.J.C. Reuvens, the first director of the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, recognized immediately the importance of the Greek and Old-Coptic glosses in the bilingual magical handbooks for the decipherment of the Demotic script.42Most scholars, however, were not impressed by the find, since

they regarded the texts to be the barbaric products of superstition and of a bastardised society in which not much was left of the standards and ideals of either classical Greek or pharaonic culture. The scientific paradigm of those days defined syncretism and hybridity, racial as well as cultural, as pollution and degeneration, with the effect that schol-ars were reluctant to include the highly syncretistic corpus into their discipline.43 It was only at the end of the nineteenth century that the

discipline of Classics drew fuller attention to these handbooks, initi-ated by the studies of the classicist Albrecht Dieterich.44The underlying

assumption which provoked this rise in interest, was that the hymns and ritual procedures contained in the handbooks were relics of texts once used by practitioners in the mystery religions of the Greek Clas-sical period. Therefore, much stress was placed on reconstructing the original texts.45 Consequently, the magical texts were not studied for 42 C.J.C. Reuvens, Lettres à M. Letronne sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs, et sur quelques autres monumens gréco-égyptiens du Musée d’Antiquités de l’Université de Leide (Leiden1830) 4.

43 For a critical analysis of the concept of hybridity, see, Robert Young, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race (London 1995). An insightful assessment of

the general negative judgement of Greco-Roman Egypt on the part of early classicists and Egyptologists is given in Heinz Heinen, ‘L’Egypte dans l’historiographie moderne du monde hellénistique’, in: L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds.), Egitto e storia antica dell’

ellenismo all’ età araba (Bologna1989) 105–135, esp. 115–133.

44 Brashear, ‘The Greek Magical Papyri’,3408–3411. That Dieterich won a student prize for his edition and analysis of PGM XII is probably not without importance and demonstrates a shift in the perception of the magical papyri. The dissertation was published as Papyrus magica musei Lugdunensis Batavi, Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie, Suppl.16, 749–830; the prolegomena are reprinted in Albrecht Dieterich, Kleine Schriften (Leipzig and Berlin 1911) 1–47. Important contributions to the study of the magical papyri are also his Abraxas. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des späten Altertums (Leipzig1891) and Eine Mithrasliturgie (Leipzig1903).

45 Fritz Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (Cambridge1997) 12. Illustrative examples are Dieterich’s reconstruction of the Mithras Liturgy (PGM IV.475–829) and Preisendanz’ reconstructed hymns initially intended for the third volume of the Papyri Graecae Magicae,

(31)

their own sake and within their historical context, but mainly in rela-tion to their hypothetical originals of which they were supposed to be a degraded form after many centuries of textual transmission.

As a basic tool for the now growing field, all Greek magical texts from Egypt were compiled under the directorship of Karl Preisendanz into one scholarly corpus, known as the ‘Papyri Graecae Magicae’, which was published in1928 and 1931.46Each manuscript was given a

number in Roman numerals whereby its lines were continuously num-bered with Arabic numerals, so that, for example, P. Leiden384 verso 1/15–3/22, a recipe to acquire control over a person with the help of Eros, became PGM XII.14–95. The magical handbooks of the The-ban Magical Library form the principal part of the PGM, but are not included in their entirety. Whereas the Old-Coptic sections are given in full and provided with philological commentary, the Demotic spells are consistently left out. In his introduction, Preisendanz keeps silent about the reasons for this exclusion; in fact, he does not mention the existence of the Demotic columns at all.47 This has led to the

awk-ward situation that the extensive P. London-Leiden, which contains29 columns on the recto and33 on the verso, mostly written in Demotic, is reduced to three pages with27 lines of Greek as PGM XIV. In the same way, the thirteen Greek columns of P. Leiden I 384 verso, col-lected as PGM XII, appear without the two preceding and four follow-ing Demotic spells. The PGM reference system established itself easily as standard, with the result that the Demotic spells, which could not be given a PGM number because they are not Greek,48 disappeared

which never appeared. They can now be found as an appendix to the second edition of the Papyri Graecae Magicae, vol.2.

46 Karl Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri2 vols. (Leipzig 1928–1931). The planned third volume with indices was lost during an air raid on Leipzig during World War II. The present study refers always to the improved sec-ond edition: Karl Preisendanz [and Albert Henrichs ed.], Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die

griechischen Zauberpapyri2 vols. (Stuttgart 1973–1974).

47 If the exclusion of the Demotic sections were to be attributed to insurmountable technical difficulties in printing Demotic script or transliteration, one would expect Preisendanz giving a short explanation in his introduction. His complete silence on the Demotic spells suggests rather a Helleno-centric perspective on the magical papyri.

48 The Demotic spells were only given a PDM number with the comprehensive translation of the magical corpus in1986; see footnote 56. Despite the fact that the introduction of the PDM numbering system demonstrates the final acknowledgement that the Demotic spells form part of the corpus, the system is otherwise of limited use. Bilingual spells are now given separate numbers for their Demotic and Greek parts, as for example in the case of P. London-Leiden4/1–22, which has become PDM xiv.93–

(32)

from sight: no PGM number meant no attention from students of the magical papyri. It goes without saying that the publication of the PGM in this particular form fixed the parameters of future research on the Theban Magical Library. The exclusion of the Demotic spells logi-cally suggested or even dictated concentration on Greek cultural ele-ments. For example, the thirteen Greek columns known as PGM XII are key texts in the study of the Greek Magical Papyri and have contin-uously been studied since Albrecht Dieterich’s pioneering dissertation on these spells, which was published in1888.49However, none of these

studies has taken the remaining Demotic spells (PDM xii) into account. As such, it is a perfect example of the danger of a scholarly discourse being narrowed down to one discipline: not only does such a one-sided approach run the risk of obscuring the object of study, it also blinds subsequent researchers, dictates the questions to be posed and, as a consequence, the answers to be found.50

To a large extent, the general absence of the Demotic spells in the study of the magical papyri can also be attributed to a general lack of interest in these Demotic texts on the part of Egyptology. Reuvens’ intuition that the bilingual papyri would be of great help in the deci-pherment of the Demotic script, proved to be correct. Nevertheless, the Demotic spells did not provoke an energetic debate on the magical techniques, mythology, religious beliefs and the poetics of the invoca-tions among early Egyptologists. As in the case of classicists, this was probably due to a general negative judgement on the mixing of cul-tures in the Hellenistic and Roman period.51Even in the introduction

to the final publication of P. London-Leiden (PDM xiv) in1904, the edi-114 [PGM XIVa.1–11]. This particular form of numbering fails to do justice to instances of code switching, a regular phenomenon in the corpus. It remains unclear to me why the PGM number is given in capitals and the PDM number in small letters. Does this suggest in a subtle way a Helleno-centric perspective on the part of the editors of the comprehensive translation volume?

49 See footnote44.

50 A telling example of recent date is Fritz Graf, ‘Prayer in Magical and Religious Ritual’, in: Christopher A. Faraone and D. Obbink eds., Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek

Magic and Religion (New York/Oxford1991) 188–213, 193. He considers PGM XIV to

be prayers without any accompanying ritual prescriptions. However, these prescriptions are quite detailed, but not included in the PGM because they are written in Demotic.

51 See again Heinen, ‘L’Egypte dans l’historiographie moderne du monde hellénis-tique’, esp.130–133. See on the ‘biological model’ and the underlying value judgements of its metaphors also Robert K. Ritner, ‘Implicit Models of Cross-Cultural Interaction: a Question of Noses, Soap, and Prejudice’, in: Janet H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a

(33)

tors F.Ll. Griffith and Herbert Thompson wrote: ‘though the subject-matter of the manuscript is not without its interest for the history of magic and medicine, its chief claim to publication lies in its philological interest’.52 A further excuse for neglecting the study of the Demotic

spells must have been the apparent discrepancy in theme and aims between pharaonic and Demotic magical spells. Whereas the former is mainly apotropaeic in nature, a fair number of Demotic spells are rather aggressive and aimed at acquiring control over a person or deity. Because of this difference the Demotic spells were not considered to be of interest for the study of pharaonic magic and easily fell into obliv-ion.53The remaining three Demotic magical handbooks were published

at large intervals in1936, 1975 and 1977, which demonstrates again the scant attention for this genre within Egyptology.54 Janet H. Johnson,

who published the Demotic spells on the Leiden manuscript contain-ing the thirteen columns of Greek (PGM XII) in1975 and the Louvre Demotic magical handbook in1977, put an end to this trend and has done important work to bring the Demotic spells to the attention of Demotists.55

52 F.Ll. Griffith and H. Thompson, The Demotic Magical papyrus of London and Leiden, 3 vols. (London 1904–1909), vol. 1, 7. The manuscript has indeed served as the basis for a study of Demotic grammar: Georges Ort-Geuthner, Grammaire démotique du Papyrus

Magique de Londres et Leyde (Paris1936). The following quote is noteworthy: ‘Mais l’intérêt

du papyrus de Londres et Leyde reside surtout dans sa langue’, page xii.

53 For example, see, J.F. Borghouts, ‘Magical Texts’, in: Textes et Langages de l’Égypte Pharaonique 3 Vol. (BibEt. 63: Cairo 1972–1974) vol. 3, 7–19, esp. 16–17. Note that

François Lexa, as an exception to the rule, made extensive use of the Demotic and Old-Coptic spells in his general study on Egyptian magic: François Lexa, La magie

dans l’Égypte antique de l’ancien empire jusqu’à l’époque copte (Paris1925). Theodor Hopfner

included partly the Demotic spells in his study Griechisch-ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber 2 vols. (Leipzig1921–1924; 2nded. Amsterdam1974, 1983, 1990).

54 The publications are: H.I. Bell, A.D. Nock and H. Thompson, Magical texts from a Bilingual Papyrus in the British Museum (London1933), Janet H. Johnson, ‘The Demotic

Magical Spells of Leiden I384’ OMRO 56 (1975) 29–64 and Idem, ‘Louvre E3229: A Demotic Magical Text’ Enchoria7 (1977) 55–102. The latter handbook contains in fact also a spell in Greek, although largely effaced nowadays, see: William M. Brashear,

Magica Varia (Papyrologica Bruxellensia25; Brussels 1991) chapter 3, ‘A charitesion’, 71–

73 and plates 4+5.

55 Apart from the text publications (see foregoing footnote), Janet H. Johnson studied the dialect of P. London-Leiden and included the manuscript as a key text in her study of the Demotic verbal system. It is not without importance that the frontispiece of the latter publication shows a drawing of the god Seth that is taken from Demotic column4 of P. Leiden I384 verso. Janet H. Johnson, The Demotic Verbal System (SAOC 38; Chicago 1976) and ‘The Dialect of the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden’, in:

(34)

With the majority of the extant Demotic and Greek magical mate-rial finally available in modern publications at the end of the 1970s, a first bridge was established between the two distinct disciplines mak-ing it possible to study the Greek and Egyptian spells in combina-tion. An important step in this direction is the comprehensive trans-lation of the magical papyri under the editorship of Hans Dieter Betz, which was published in1986.56A joint team of classicists translated the

Greek spells, while the Egyptologist Janet H. Johnson was in charge of the Demotic sections. Robert K. Ritner, another Egyptologist, aided with annotating the translated Greek and Demotic spells, giving ear-lier Egyptian parallels or explaining Egyptian religious concepts and images that underlie the mechanics of the rituals. In this way, the edi-tion testifies to the linguistic and cultural complexity of the magical material.

However, the volume still advocates in a subtle but telling way the supremacy of the Greek spells over the Demotic sections as reveals its title ‘The Greek Magical Papyri in translation’, with the subti-tle, in a significantly smaller font, ‘Including the demotic spells’. In recent years, Robert K. Ritner has frequently objected to a prevalent Helleno-centric perspective by stressing the fact that, in his view, both the Greek and Demotic spells were embedded in earlier pharaonic magical practices and should be studied in the light of pharaonic rit-ual.57 A slightly different position is taken by Christopher A. Faraone,

who likewise stresses the multicultural character of the magical cor-pus, but argues for a combined study of Greek, Egyptian and Semitic

56 Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Including the Demotic spells (Chicago1986).

57 His most fervent and lucid plea for an acknowledgement of the underlying phara-onic tradition in the Demotic and Greek magical papyri is Robert K. Ritner, ‘Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: the Demotic Spells and their Religious Context’ ANRW II.18.5 (1995) 3333–3379, esp. 3358–3371. In his dissertation on Egyp-tian magical practices he treats pharaonic, Demotic and Greek magical spells on an equal footing, thereby suggesting that, in a sense, they formed part of one and the same Egyptian ritual tradition: The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (SAOC 54; Chicago1993). See also his rather polemic critique on the cultural hierarchies underly-ing most classicist’s studies of Greco-Roman Egypt: Ritner, ‘Implicit Models of Cross-Cultural Interaction’. Ritner’s views have been characterised as overestimating the Egyptian side of the corpus; see for some critique: Graf, Magic in the Ancient World,5; Christopher A. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge1999) 35–36; Idem, ‘The Ethnic Origins of a Roman-Era Philtrokatadesmos (PGM IV.296–434)’, in: Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (eds.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World141; Leiden 2002) 319–343, 322f.

References

Related documents

With the focus on the parallelism between the economic reforms on the island and the changing American interest group politics, this paper seeks to study the determinants

we found improvements in the overall mean effect of exudative AMD on contraction amplitudes and time to peak at 3 months, with reductions in amplitude deviations less pronounced

• Patients with poor left ventricular function, severe coronary artery disease, ischaemic mitral regurgitation, aneurysmal disease and a high (thoracic) application of

The principal hypothesis of AJR is that institutions cause economic perform- ance. To infer causality from institutions to economic development authors assume the strategy of

Khi các giải pháp trên ít hiệu quả chúng ta có thể sử dụng phương pháp tăng công suất phát để tăng tỉ số C/I, hoặc giảm công suất của trạm gây nhiễu.. Ngoài

Then the second player tries to throw his or her marble closer to the hole than his or her opponent. The player whose marble is closest to the hole tries to flick his or her

The PREDICT macro produces predicted survival probabilities for each customer at a specified time (for this case, number of months after the origin of time), based on the

The Planetary Boundaries that we have already transgressed or are likely to transgress due to system lock-ins (biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus, genetic diversity of the